Cargando…

Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone

OBJECTIVE: To compare emergency with elective ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of a single ureteric stone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The files of adult patients with a single ureteric stone were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with fever or turbid urine on passage of the guidewire beside the ston...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Al-Terki, Abdullatif, Alkabbani, Majd, Alenezi, Talal A., Al-Shaiji, Tariq F., Al-Mousawi, Shabir, El-Nahas, Ahmed R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8158266/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34104487
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2020.1813004
_version_ 1783699848404402176
author Al-Terki, Abdullatif
Alkabbani, Majd
Alenezi, Talal A.
Al-Shaiji, Tariq F.
Al-Mousawi, Shabir
El-Nahas, Ahmed R.
author_facet Al-Terki, Abdullatif
Alkabbani, Majd
Alenezi, Talal A.
Al-Shaiji, Tariq F.
Al-Mousawi, Shabir
El-Nahas, Ahmed R.
author_sort Al-Terki, Abdullatif
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare emergency with elective ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of a single ureteric stone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The files of adult patients with a single ureteric stone were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with fever or turbid urine on passage of the guidewire beside the stone underwent ureteric stenting or nephrostomy drainage. Patients who underwent URS were included and divided into two groups: the emergency (EM) Group, those who presented with persistent renal colic and underwent emergency URS within 24 h; and the elective (EL) Group, who underwent elective URS after ≥14 days of diagnosis. Patients with ureteric stents were excluded. The technique for URS was the same in both groups. Safety was defined as absence of complications. Efficacy was defined as the stone-free rate after a single URS session. RESULTS: From March 2015 to September 2018, 179 patients (107 in the EM Group and 72 in the EL Group) were included. There were significantly more hydronephrosis and smaller stones in the EM Group (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively). Laser disintegration was needed in more patients in the EL Group (83% vs 68%, P = 0.023). Post-URS ureteric stents were inserted in more patients in the EM Group (91% vs 72%, P = 0.001). Complications were comparable for both groups (4.2% for EL and 5.6% for EM, P = 0.665). Stone-free rates were also comparable (93% in the EL Group and 96% in the EM Group, P = 0.336). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency URS can be as safe and effective as elective URS for the treatment of a single ureteric stone if it is performed in patients without fever or turbid urine. Abbreviations: EL Group: elective group; EM Group: emergency group; KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; MET: medical expulsive therapy; NCCT: non-contrast CT; SFR: stone-free rate; SWL: shockwave lithotripsy; URS: ureteroscopy
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8158266
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81582662021-06-07 Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone Al-Terki, Abdullatif Alkabbani, Majd Alenezi, Talal A. Al-Shaiji, Tariq F. Al-Mousawi, Shabir El-Nahas, Ahmed R. Arab J Urol Stones/Endourology OBJECTIVE: To compare emergency with elective ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of a single ureteric stone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The files of adult patients with a single ureteric stone were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with fever or turbid urine on passage of the guidewire beside the stone underwent ureteric stenting or nephrostomy drainage. Patients who underwent URS were included and divided into two groups: the emergency (EM) Group, those who presented with persistent renal colic and underwent emergency URS within 24 h; and the elective (EL) Group, who underwent elective URS after ≥14 days of diagnosis. Patients with ureteric stents were excluded. The technique for URS was the same in both groups. Safety was defined as absence of complications. Efficacy was defined as the stone-free rate after a single URS session. RESULTS: From March 2015 to September 2018, 179 patients (107 in the EM Group and 72 in the EL Group) were included. There were significantly more hydronephrosis and smaller stones in the EM Group (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively). Laser disintegration was needed in more patients in the EL Group (83% vs 68%, P = 0.023). Post-URS ureteric stents were inserted in more patients in the EM Group (91% vs 72%, P = 0.001). Complications were comparable for both groups (4.2% for EL and 5.6% for EM, P = 0.665). Stone-free rates were also comparable (93% in the EL Group and 96% in the EM Group, P = 0.336). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency URS can be as safe and effective as elective URS for the treatment of a single ureteric stone if it is performed in patients without fever or turbid urine. Abbreviations: EL Group: elective group; EM Group: emergency group; KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; MET: medical expulsive therapy; NCCT: non-contrast CT; SFR: stone-free rate; SWL: shockwave lithotripsy; URS: ureteroscopy Taylor & Francis 2020-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8158266/ /pubmed/34104487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2020.1813004 Text en © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Stones/Endourology
Al-Terki, Abdullatif
Alkabbani, Majd
Alenezi, Talal A.
Al-Shaiji, Tariq F.
Al-Mousawi, Shabir
El-Nahas, Ahmed R.
Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
title Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
title_full Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
title_fullStr Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
title_full_unstemmed Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
title_short Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
title_sort emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
topic Stones/Endourology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8158266/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34104487
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2020.1813004
work_keys_str_mv AT alterkiabdullatif emergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone
AT alkabbanimajd emergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone
AT alenezitalala emergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone
AT alshaijitariqf emergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone
AT almousawishabir emergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone
AT elnahasahmedr emergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone